The scene where was so clunky and amateurish. The overbearingly bad music, the cheesy close-up reaction shots from Natalie Portman, the clumsy audience emotional manipulation... I had completely forgotten about that until now. It was eye-rollingly bad.

I still think the movie is a very solid * * * 1/2 out of * * * * *, but that was "Frog struck by lightning" bad.

Obviously you've never seen what happens to a frog when it is struck by lightning

Anyone who ever complains in a comic book movie that they didn't stay true to the source material...doesn't remember how fucked up comic books can be.

Actually, that part was played rather well since the humour helped offset the cheesiness (while the scene never shied away from reveling in how cheesy it all was). I thought Branagh struck a great balance there.

My son and I saw it last night (in 3D), and we liked it quite a bit. I was going to give it 4 stars, but decided to bump it to 4 1/2, because of the nice Avengers tie-ins throughout the movie (including the replay of the post-credit scene from Iron Man 2).

On the 3D subject, I would say that overall, it didn't add much to the story, but during the wide shots of Asgard, several of the space shots (including the closing credits), and a few other scenes, it did add a believable sense of depth. Probably not worth the extra 4 bucks, but I'm a 3D junkie.

I didn't get any sense of humor in that scene. It was played rather straight, almost entirely. A manufactured, "Get the audience to cheer!!" moment. Except that the sold-out audience I saw it with sat in sort of stony silence. It felt cheap and cloying, instead of a big "HUZZAH!" moment they were going for.

The humour came from the whole "it's a good look" banter between Portman and Hemsworth.

Those issues are quite lighthearted when compared to the rest of the material written by Simonson. A lot of it is done for laughs, especially those of Thor

They would be quite entertaining on screen, but many would see it as too screwball comedy.

Granted i don't agree with it cause i enjoyed the movie a great deal, but Eberts slander of the movie made me laugh
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011...ttend_the.html

Here is a film that is scoring 79% on Rotten Tomatoes. For what? The standards for comic book superhero movies have been established by "Superman," "The Dark Knight," "Spider-Man 2" and "Iron Man." In that company "Thor" is pitiful. Consider even the comparable villains (Lex Luthor, the Joker, Doc Ock and Obadiah Stane). Memories of all four come instantly to mind. Will you be thinking of Loki six minutes after this movie is over?

The director given this project, Kenneth Branagh, once obtained funding for a magnificent 70mm version of "Hamlet." Now he makes "Thor." I wonder with a dread fear if someone in Hollywood, stuck with a movie about a Norse god, said "Get Branagh. He deals with that Shakespeare shit."

Ebert's fucking nuts, Loki was an amazing villain in that there was a real duality to his character, not some engineered twist designed solely to subvert the main character.

And really, he loved Hulk, giving it three stars for it's unique nature and that is my favorite comic book film. It's inconsistency bordering on troll-status.

To be honest, beyond comic book fans, I don't think anyone remembers Obadiah Stane after Iron Man is over. And Spider-Man 2 gets worse every time I watch it.

I disagree with Ebert, but the movie DOES have problems that I think most fanboy reviewers are glossing over.

Although Stane >>> Loki in the villain department. But I think that has more to do with Bridges's performance than how the character was written.

Stane wasn't particularly memorable to me either. I think a few more years, and a lot of folks would even have trouble remembering his name.

All the Spider-Man films do. And I think Dunst was horribly miscast. Sooo many people could have played her part if that's the way Raimi wanted MJ to be. To me in SM2, Molina was the best part....not that that meant a lot in that film. LOVED the hospital scene though

I never remember the characters name (the villain from Iron Man) but I do remember the character and my feelings on what a great foe he was. Loki in Thor will be similar for me in years to come. I think the only difference is I will have an easier time remembering Loki because the name is something I'm already familiar with.

Spider-Man 2 is still awesome. Stane was not memorable. If it hadn't been Bridges playing him, no one would have noticed there was a bad guy at all.

I thought Loki was a good villain, but I can't wait to see him again now that he's fallen from Asgard.

I gave it 4 stars. It wasn't game-changing like The Dark Knight or even Spider-Man 2, but it was a solid entry in the Marvel lore, and overall a pretty good action movie.

I agree that the resurrection scene was a bit much, and I didn't particularly care for all his friends hanging out with him. But, I did think Loki had some great scenes, as did Odin. Loki was damn smart, and I didn't see the twist coming.

All being said, I think the most exciting moment for me in the entire movie was the cameo of

I still don't get the awesome love for SM2, I like the film I think it's good but it ain't a game changer at all. It gets worse w/ each viewing as well to me. Iron man is a much better film (and I'm less of an IM fan...but he's been written really well for several years now) than SM2.

SM2 is incredibly hammy and has some of the most eye rolling dialogue in any movie ever (the shitty payphone scene comes to mind). The only good parts were the stopping of the train and that Evil Dead 2-esque hospital scene.

Personally, aside from Hulk, all of the pre-Nolan '00's comic movies are mediocre. I've only really enjoyed Hulk, both Batman's, and Thor.

Didn't her mom in 40yo Virgin offer to dress up like Thor for Andy?

Yes. Love Katherine Keener....and I was very attracted to KD in that as well. Lucky for me that we're the same age so it's not weird.

Yeah she did actually